Making a Will? Don't Forget Those Entitled to Look to You for Support

14th June 2021 By

When making your will, it is vital to remember those who have a right to look to you for financial support. As a High Court case showed, a failure to meet your duties to your dependants is highly likely to trigger a costly dispute – and ultimately judicial intervention – after you are gone.

The case concerned a businessman who died from an incurable lung condition at the age of just 41, leaving an estate valued at over £800,000 for probate. By a will made shortly before his death, he appointed his partner as sole executor of his estate and divided his assets between her and his parents – the beneficiaries.

He left nothing at all to his two sons by a marriage which had ended in acrimonious divorce about seven years prior to his death. His ex-wife’s response was to launch proceedings under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, seeking reasonable provision for his sons from his estate.

The beneficiaries responded that, some years before the man died, responsibility for providing for the boys had been assumed entirely by his ex-wife and her new husband. All direct contact between the man and his sons had ceased more than four years before he made his final will and it was asserted that there was no basis on which he could be expected to provide for them financially in his will.

Ruling on the matter, the Court found that only in the most exceptional cases could it be argued that a father’s duty to provide for his children had been entirely severed. The concept of a clean break was not generally applicable in respect of child maintenance. Although the boys’ stepfather treated them as children of his family and had taken on the burden of providing for them, their father’s responsibility to maintain them had not been extinguished.

The Court directed that the younger boy, who was still at school, should receive £117,962 from his father’s estate. The older boy, who had recently turned 18, received £68,022.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Challenge to Will's Validity Rejected by High Court

12th April, 2024 By

The best way to ensure your assets will be distributed as you wish is to have your will professionally drafted by a qualified solicitor. In a recent case, a challenge to the validity of an elderly man's will was dismissed by the High Court. The man had previously made a will in 2011, leaving most of his estate equally to his three children. In 2018, by which time one of his sons had predeceased him, he made a further will, leaving the residue of his estate to his other son...

Defiance of Family Court Orders Will Always End Badly

10th April, 2024 By

Custodial sentences very rarely come into play in the family courts. Where there have been repeated breaches of court orders, however, judges may have little choice but to clamp down. This was illustrated in the High Court during committal proceedings that stemmed from a child custody dispute. The background to the case involved contested proceedings between the father and mother of a young child. These concluded with a court order establishing that the child – a daughter – would live with the mother. Three months later the daughter travelled with...

Claim for SDLT Relief on Annex Unsuccessful

8th April, 2024 By

When buying a property consisting of more than one residence, it may be possible to claim multiple dwellings relief (MDR) against Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT). However, there are certain conditions that must be met for an MDR claim to succeed, as a recent case illustrates. A property was purchased for £1.8 million. Prior to the purchase, the buyer had agreed with the seller that he would be allowed to carry out works to construct a self-contained annex at the property. The buyer's SDLT return included a claim for MDR...

Divorce – Alleged Bigamy Raised in Financial Remedies Dispute

5th April, 2024 By

The issue of bigamy and its potential impact on a person's ability to seek financial remedies in a divorce came under the legal spotlight recently. A husband made an application to strike out his wife's financial remedies claim on the basis that she had committed bigamy and deceived him into a marriage when she knew she was not free to marry. This deceit, he claimed, was so egregious that, as a matter of public policy, she should be debarred from pursuing any claim for financial remedies against him. The husband based...